'You don't want to necessarily just rely on a finding from the regulatory body': employment lawyer explains why location, supervision, and history matter
A 2025 decision from the Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation Commission provides crucial lessons for HR leaders handling complex disability and accommodation claims – particularly those involving psychological injuries.
In this case, the Commission rejected a worker’s request for temporary total disability (TTD) benefits because their psychological restrictions were deemed permanent.
As a result, the temporary benefits framework did not apply, and the Commission directed the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) to adjudicate the claim as a permanent disability.
Why independent assessments matter
In this case, Decision No.: 2025-0257, 2025 CanLII 39240 (AB WCAC) an Alberta worker who had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder after experiencing workplace bullying sought temporary total disability (TTD) benefits.
Although he refused a modified work placement offered by the employer, citing psychological safety concerns related to specific supervisors, the Workers’ Compensation Board and the Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body both denied continued TTD benefits. Upon appeal, the Appeals Commission found that the worker’s psychological restrictions were permanent
According to Kristen Shaw, employment lawyer with McMillan in B.C., a key takeaway from the decision is the importance of obtaining independent medical evaluations instead of relying solely on regulating board recommendations, regardless of jurisdiction.
“You don't want to necessarily just rely on a finding from the regulatory body on if this person can return to work or needs a specific accommodation or cannot be accommodated,” Shaw says.
“There needs to be a bit of independent assessment of medical advice.”
She adds that functional abilities assessments are particularly useful for identifying what an employee can and cannot do on the job.
“That's done through what is often called a functional abilities assessment … where a doctor will provide information on what those actual practical limitations are as they relate to the workplace.”
Location and history matter as much as job duties
In this decision, there was some debate around how location-based restrictions (in this case due to bullying and harassment that occurred at certain locations) should be assessed.
“The suitability of modified work under policy is not determined solely by the location where the injury causing events occurred – it must be assessed holistically, where consideration is given to both the worker’s current medical restrictions and overall capacity to safely perform the modified work, irrespective of where the original workplace stressors occurred,” the decision stated.
One doctor found the restrictions permanent; another called them temporary but did not offer a clear timeline. Ultimately, the panel sided with the evidence indicating permanence, shifting the benefits path entirely.
“It's important for employers to seek that independent medical assessment,” Shaw reiterates, “to determine that that is actually the case … that this is a permanent disability and that the accommodations that would be necessary to manage it are just untenable.”
Navigating interpersonal conflicts and accommodations
Mental health accommodations can overlap with interpersonal conflict – as in this case, the employee had a “persistent depressive disorder” as well as the psychological injury due to the harassment and bullying.
Shaw explains the complexity of mental health claims, and the importance for HR to determine whether there’s a medically supported restriction, or simply a workplace conflict requiring management intervention.
“Does the employee actually have a medical issue that needs to be accommodated ... or is it more of a question of how to best manage employees who are having interpersonal conflicts?” Shaw says.
“In some cases, especially around bullying, it can fall a little bit more into the latter category.”
In the 2025 ruling, the worker had previously experienced bullying and harassment. Though the offered position did not include direct contact with the supervisors involved, the worker and multiple medical professionals still identified psychological risk from returning to the location.
Shaw recommends engaging employees in solutions when there’s disagreement over whether accommodations are suitable: “Let the employee guide that, within the scope of what the employer can reasonably do, because sometimes employees will make requests that are impossible to accommodate, and that can also be communicated.”
Accommodation while respecting medical boundaries
Shaw cautions that while medical input is essential, employers must be careful not to overstep.
“An employer shouldn't be asking about a specific diagnosis,” she says.
“[They] shouldn't be asking for additional medical information that isn't necessary to specifically accommodate that employee’s needs.”
Instead, HR should focus only on how the condition affects job performance. Even if employees volunteer extra medical information, Shaw advises against keeping or using it.
“If an employer … has asked for more than they really ought to have, make sure that any of that information is destroyed, is not shared with anybody, and is not used for any purpose,” she says.
“If the employee offers that information, the employer still should not be using that and should make sure that it's protected. It gets more into privacy issues, where that type of very sensitive information should be very, very carefully protected, and it's often better just to not have it in the possession of an employer.”
Striking a balance
The Alberta Appeals Commission decision illustrates how missing or unclear documentation about the nature of work restrictions can delay or derail a claim – and how quickly benefit entitlements can shift.
Therefore, HR professionals should be proactive in obtaining appropriate evidence, managing information securely, and working with employees to find realistic and medically sound accommodations.
Ultimately, Shaw advises employers to find the middle ground between diligence and patience.
“It's a matter of balancing having some patience and grace for employees who are going through very difficult periods in their lives, with making sure that employers insist that they receive the information they need to actually manage the employment relationship,” she says.
“Making sure that that balance is carefully managed throughout this entire process.”
